DOCSLIB.ORG

Astor House Proposal To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CITY OF GOLDEN PLANNING STAFF REPORT
FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AGENDA

HPB 21-05

  • CASE NO:
  • MEETING DATE: May 3, 2021

APPLICANT:

REQUESTED ACTION: Certificate of Appropriateness: Certificate of Design Review and
Finding of Compatibility for an internal remodel, external repairs and rear addition located at 822 12th Street, in the 12th Street Historic District

EXHIBITS:

Resolution HPB 21-05 Vicinity Map Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Review Memo regarding expansion and the ‘yard’ Application

SUMMARY

An application has been submitted to the City of Golden Historic Preservation Board to consider a certificate of design review and a finding of compatibility for external repairs and a rear addition, located at 822 12th Street, the Astor House, a contributing structure within the 12th Street Historic District and Landmark Property in the City of Golden. Pursuant to the Historic District Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines), the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) requires a review prior to the issuance of a building permit for renovation and new construction of this type to any structure within a historic district. The HPB should review the proposal, make any design suggestions, and adopt a resolution documenting the review.

BACKGROUND

The Astor House is located at 822 12th Street and was built in approximately 1867 and is listed as a contributing structure in the 12th Street Historic District. The Astor House is also a Landmark Property in the City, designated in 2020. Over the past 148 years the Building has played multiple and important roles in the City of Golden. These range from museum, to boarding house to hotel during the Territorial capital days. Much has been presented to the Historic Board about the importance of both honoring and preserving the Astor House as an important part of Golden History, while also allowing it to be a working and link to the downtown and 12th St Historic District. The important facts regarding this historic structure and its role in history not only for Golden but the State of Colorado are provided in the application, Foothills Art Center, application packet submittal, see attached. The Board’s Astor House Structure Report was also consulted for this applicant and review.

Currently the building (since 2015) has sat vacant following the City’s stabilization and rehabilitation efforts. The Applicant wishes to repair the building internally and externally, and add an addition to the existing structure in the rear of the property. This addition aims to complement the existing design

Historic Preservation Board HPB 21-05 May 3, 2021

and allow for a more creative addition that both complements the existing building and opens it up for new and creative uses for the future.

DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA

The Historic Preservation Board most often addresses additions or changes to an existing structure. In order to appropriately address exterior changes, it is instructive to review the specific code criteria and purpose for the review. Section 18.58.060(3) contains the criteria for changes to or demolition of existing structures. The Golden Historic District Residential Guidelines (Guidelines) reviews materials for additions and alterations and states, “For additions or repairs, use materials similar in type and scale to those of the existing building”.

The proposed changes with the addition of an existing structure are reviewed under the Historic Guidelines for consistency with the original architecture, streetscape and the neighborhood. Additionally, the project was reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards by Cindy Nasky with the Colorado Historical Foundation, see the attached memo.

The Applicant has proposed that materials and appearance on the repairs will be as close as possible to the existing structure. No proposed rehabilitation to the existing structure maintains the entire structure with the exception of a small 1950’s rear addition. This addition is outside the period of significance for the Astor House.

While the COA: Certificate of Design Review is ultimately a recommendation, the HPB may wish to review the structure under the historic building addition criteria to document the proposed changes. The guidelines for additions and alterations apply for the addition. In the attached review of the historic

district standards and guidelines, the rehabilitation of the Astor House and the rear addition meet the Board’s standards and guidelines with a white colored addition in contrasting, but complementary materials and similar form with a functional two-story addition meeting the Foothills Art Center’s need for gallery space.

Astor House Yard

Staff is attaching a memorandum in light of recent citizen correspondence to the City Council and some members of the Historic Preservation Board regarding the expansion of the addition further into the yard. Staff confirms that the expansion into the yard does not require a vote, per the City Charter, for the expansion. The Board may discuss the expansion as a policy matter during its deliberations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff has reviewed the requested changes to 822 12th Street using the Board’s standards and guidelines. The addition clearly meets the Guidelines and staff recommends approval without any conditions. The addition also meets the intent of the Guidelines as the colors and roofline are complementary to the principal structure with modern materials. The modern materials distinguish this addition from the Historic Structure. In review of the proposed addition, considering the Landmark status of the structure, the changes proposed do meet the Guidelines. Staff advises the Board that the application meets the applicable review criteria. The rehabilitation and new addition also meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, per the independent review of the Colorado Historical Foundation.

2

Historic Preservation Board HPB 21-05 May 3, 2021

DRAFT MOTION

In the matter of Case HPB 21-05, a request for COA: Certificate of Design Review and a Finding of Compatibility for the proposed addition residential noncontributing structure, located at 822 12th Street, I move that the Historic Preservation Board the findings, recommendations and conditions found in the attached Resolution No. HPB 21-05.

3

Standards and Guideline

  • Description
  • Staff Review

3.2.a Streetscape: Standards

Maintain existing sidewalk and tree lawn treatment.
The exiting streetscape (devoid of street trees) at 822 12th Street/Arapahoe is not proposed to change with this project, although there are Cityled efforts to gain funding to improve it from its current condition to a more inviting pedestrian environment.

3.2.a

Landscaping should be limited to street trees, The exiting streetscape at 822 12th specimen trees as focal points, and massing of Street/Arapahoe is not proposed to change with

Streetscape: Guidelines

  • shrubbery near the building.
  • this project due to the buildings’ location.

3.2.b Site: Standards

Locate accessory buildings such as sheds and The change on this site is taking place in the rear garages at the rear of the lot, as is traditional. of the lot with the addition. No new accessory buildings are proposed.

3.2.b Site: Guidelines

Sidewalks should be rectilinear and should maintain traditional patterns paralleling the streets.
No new access is proposed in the front of the site, and access will be maintained to and from the rear yard from Arapahoe and the surrounding parking area. The Astor House is being
Repair of building, landscape and streetscape rehabilitated and repaired as part of this project. elements should reinforce the historic character. Repair will also generally include replacement with a similar or compatible material.
The Board’s Astor House Report is able to inform the building repairs through analysis and historical photographs.

Physical evidence and or photos should be used as a guide when replacing an entire feature of the building, landscape or streetscape that is too deteriorated to repair.

3.2.c Spacing: Standards

Locate additions to existing houses back from The new addition of the Astor House is being the front facade so the visual quality of spacing is preserved. located in the rear of the lot.

3.2.c Spacing: Guidelines

Preserve the existing setback characteristic of The new addition of the Astor House is being the block. Porches, decks, solid fences, or located in the rear of the lot and is in line with other similar additions should not intrude into the existing house. this space, and are more appropriate at the rear of the building.

Additions to a building should maintain the overall sense of size of the building.

3.2.d Open Area & Landscape: Standards

Maintain openness between the street and the There is not existing space between the front of

  • house.
  • house and 12th Street. The project is proposing

to rehabilitate the rear yard area around the new addition.

3.2.d Open Area &

Limit front yard landscaping to street and specimen trees and massing of shrubbery near not a yard; however, the landscaping will be in
No space for landscaping in the front as there is

  • the building.
  • the rear yard, where it has been traditionally on

this lot.

Landscape: Guidelines

Preserve the landscape entry on the street frontage, even if internal layout requires an alternative or secondary entry location.

3.2.e Alleys: Standards

Preserve the use of alleys to provide access to This property does not have traditional alley

  • the rear of properties.
  • access, however no new driveways are being

proposed.

3.2.e Alleys: Guidelines

Efforts should be made to protect the variety of shape, size, and alignment of buildings along the alleys.
This property does not have an alley that is in anyway preserved.

3.2.f Building Variety: Standards

To the extent practicable, locate the new addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of the historic building.
The new addition is on the rear of the property and is scaled to be subservient to Astor House with a ‘light touch’ or glass atrium connection, clearly delineating the addition from the old to the new. The district’s dimensional standards, of height, bulk and lot coverage standard will be reviewed additionally by the Planning Commission, but as proposed meets those standards.
Limit the size and scale of the addition(s) in relationship to the historic building.

Comply with applicable City-wide height, bulk and lot coverage standards.

3.2.f Building Variety: Guidelines

New additions should be constructed so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials and that historically characteristic features of the home are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed.
The new addition is being constructed by removing an older 1950s’s addition and is distinctive from the original Astor House in materials. The addition compliments the existing structure with screens that mimic windows in placement and a roof form that similar to the
Any addition to a historic structure should be existing house, but will be separated by the designed to architecturally compliment the existing historic structure and the neighborhood for which it is within. Design additional stories that are as atrium between the addition and main structure. While the addition’s color palette is the same as the Astor House, contrasting materials are proposed to differentiate it from the original inconspicuous as possible when viewed from house with a smooth stucco and metal screen

  • the street.
  • over it.

Where matching historic materials is impractical, consider contrasting materials, colors and textures.

3.2.h Roof Forms: Standards

Use the roof form of the original structure or, There are no changes proposed to the original as a second choice, a historically compatible structure’s roof. The roof of the addition is in roof form found in the district for to a building line and subordinate to the existing roofline

  • structure.
  • structures.

Roof lines interrupted by solar panels, skylights, and roof decks should not be visible from the street. Solar greenhouses on the street façade are inappropriate.

3.2.h Roof Forms: Guidelines

Solar panels should be mounted flat on the roof or flat against the pitch of the roof and out for the original structure’s roof or any for the of sight if possible or on the ground in an inconspicuous position. Skylights should be flat and not the bubble type.
There are no solar panels or sky lights proposed addition that would protrude above the roofline. There are no enclosed porches proposed for the project.
Porch enclosures designed to be passive solar elements should observe the guidelines for porches. Any metal should be finished to blend with surrounding building material.

3.2.i Windows: Guidelines

Every effort should be made to repair original The existing windows on the Astor House are

  • windows rather than replace them.
  • being repaired and maintained. Any new

windows on the addition are modern and fit with
When replacement of deteriorated windows is the design of the addition in scale, color and required, or new ones must be added, the original windows should be matched in size and type. materials.
Metal window frames may not be left as bright unfinished metal but should be anodized or painted as recommended by the manufacturer.

Storm windows and screens should match the original windows as nearly as possible. Bright aluminum frames and screens are inappropriate.

The renovation of existing buildings should reflect the pattern of window openings that exist in other buildings of the District. Openings should indicate floor levels, and should reflect the symmetry or asymmetry of the building.

3.2.j Entrances, Solid walls should not be added where none

No solid walls are proposed for the front

  • porch/entrance area or any modifications.
  • originally existed.

Decks and Porches

The size and location of new porches should be typical to the historical architectural form of the home.

(Porches and Entrances): Standards

3.2.j Entrances, When repairing porches, the open visual

Any repairs to the front porch area will be done in a manner that is consistent with the building as it is currently as there are no changes character should be preserved. Deteriorated porches should be repaired rather than demolished.

Decks and Porches (Porches and Entrances): Guidelines

proposed with the exception of paint colors.
Creating an enclosed porch may be desirable for the renovation of buildings, but such enclosures have a significant impact on the visual character of both the individual house and the streetscape. The greatest care needs to be taken in the design of the enclosure to maintain the sense of transparency and separation from the structure of the house. Glazing should be transparent with as little visible framing as possible. The design and materials should be kept as simple as possible rather than trying to match the building facade. Porch materials treatments should be historically compatible.

3.2.j Entrances, Decks should be at the rear of the home.

The proposed deck is on the rear of the addition.

Decks and Porches (Decks): Standards

3.2.j Entrances, Decks should be as unobtrusive as possible.

The proposed deck is unobtrusive because it is on the rear of the addition is a modern finish that is consistent with the materials and finishes of
Unpainted redwood is a material of modern use and is inappropriate in the Historic

Decks and Porches

District. Rooftop decks are highly visible and the addition. are not common to the styles found in the residential architecture of historic Golden.

(Decks): Guidelines

Railings should incorporate details from existing balustrades. Contemporary building codes require details that change the height of railings.

3.2.k Materials: Siding materials such as wood, brick, and

stone are most appropriate.
The plastered-over stone of the Astor House is not being modified with this addition. For the addition, a small 1950’s addition is being

Standards

For additions or repairs, use materials similar removed and a glass ‘light touch’ is being added in type and scale to those of the existing building. Where similar materials are not practical, use contrasting materials. to transition to a new section with a smooth cementious finish with a modern metal screen over which contrast with the building.

3.2.k Materials: Finish new materials to match the existing

The applicant is purposely proposing the new addition to have different finish than the existing building. The new building will have a matte white paint color to match the existing building. materials. Highly reflective materials are inappropriate in the historic area.

Guidelines

Protect and maintain building exterior materials by providing proper drainage so that water does not stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or accumulate next to or on building materials or in a curved decorative feature.

Repair or replace exterior building materials that are too deteriorated, by using the physical evidence or past photos as a guide in applying the new materials.

3.2.l Paint Color: Standards

Paint or repaint with colors that are appropriate to the historic building and district.
The applicant is proposing a white paint color for the addition. The Astor House’s trim is proposed to be painted ochre yellow-type color to freshen its appearance; however, the white façade of the building is not proposed to change.

3.2.l Paint Color: Guidelines

Some pigments are more unstable than others The proposed colors of white with a gold-yellow due to Colorado's high levels of ultra-violet light. trim are muted colors. There are no consistent paint colors that have been used over the years on the trim colors, so it is open to interpretation

  • and a color that suits the use.
  • Colors that are muted will be most

appropriate.

Remove damaged or deteriorating paint only to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible before repainting.

3.2.m Fences: Standards

Solid and chain link fences should not be used New fencing is not proposed in the front, only in in front of the house, but may be appropriate for fencing areas to the rear. the rear and side.

3.2.m Fences: Guidelines

A durable material in an open design should be used for fences in front of the building setback line.
The applicant is proposing a metal fencing (not chain link) in the rear/side, replacing the iron fencing in the current rear yard. The current fencing in the rear yard was moved there from the Masterson house after the Astor House’s primary and secondary period of significance. The City will find a reuse for the iron fencing materials currently located in the yard area.
Iron and wood pickets are appropriate and may be used in conjunction with a low masonry wall.

Low privet hedges are appropriate but require more ongoing maintenance. Chain link fences are inappropriate.

Fences and walls on in the rear of corner lots are essentially placed in the front yard of the side street frontage.

3.2.n Accessory Garages shall be at the side or rear of

There are no new garages proposed. residential structures. Garages should not become a dominant feature in front of the house or in any location. Garage doors shall not be forward of the front façade of the residence.

Buildings and Garages: Standards

3.2.n Accessory New garages shall be located in a manner that There are no new garages or parking structures retains the size and character of accessory buildings found in the area of the new construction. Garage doors should be made of and the City Council to assist with any offsets proposed. All parking will be handled by the Planning Commission during site plan review

Recommended publications
  • Early New York Houses (1900)

    Early New York Houses (1900)

    1 f A ':-- V ,^ 4* .£^ * '"W "of o 5 ^/ v^v %-^v V^\^ ^^ > . V .** .-•jfltef-. %.^ .-is»i-. \.^ .-^fe-. *^** -isM'. \,/ V s\ " c«^W.».' . o r^0^ a? %<> **' -i v , " • S » < •«. ci- • ^ftl>a^'» ( c 'f ^°- ^ '^#; > ^ " • 1 * ^5- «> w * dsf\\Vv>o», . O V ^ V u 4- ^ ° »*' ^> t*o* **d« vT1 *3 ^d* 4°^ » " , ^o .<4 o ^iW/^2, , ^A ^ ^°^ fl <^ ° t'o LA o^ t « « % 1 75*° EARLY Z7Ja NEW YORK HOVSEvS 1900 EARLY NEW YORK HOVSES WITH HISTORICAL 0^ GEN- EALOGICAL NOTES BY' WILLIAM S.PELLETREAV,A.M. PHOTOGRAPHS OFOLDHOVSES C-ORIGINAL ILLVSTRATIONSBY C.G.MOLLER. JR. y y y v v v v v v v <&-;-??. IN TEN PARTS FRANCIS P.HARPER, PVBLIS HER NEW YORK,A.D.jQOO^ * vvvvvvvv 1A Library of Coi NOV 13 1900 SECOND COPY Oeliv. ORDER DIVISION MAR. 2 1901 fit,* P3b ..^..^•^•^Si^jSb;^^;^^. To the memory of WILLIAM KELBY I^ate librarian of the New York Historical Society f Whose labors of careful patient and successful research w have been equalled by few—surpassed by none. w Natvs, Decessit, MDCCCXU MDCCCXCVIII ¥ JIT TIBI TERRA LEVIJ , ^5?^5?^'55>•^••^•^=^,•^•" ==i•'t=^^•':ft>•' 1 St. Phuup's Church, Centre; Street Page 1 V 2 Old Houses on " Monkey Hill " 3/ 3 The Oldest Houses in Lafayette Place 7 / 4 The Site of Captain Kidd's House ll • 5 Old Houses on York Street 15/ 6 The Merchant's Exchange 19 V 7 Old Houses Corner of Watts and Hudson Streets 23 </ 27v/ 8 Baptist Church on Fayette Street, 1808 . 9 The in Night Before Christmas" was House which "The •/ Written 31 10 Franklin Square, in 1856 35^ 11 The First Tammany Hall 41 </ 12 Houses on Bond Street 49^ 13 The Homestead of Casper Samler 53/ 14 The Tank of the Manhattan Water Company 57 ^ 15 Residence of General Winfield Scott 61 l/ 16 The Last Dwelling House on Broadway, (The Goelet Mansion) 65^ \/ 17 Old Houses on Cornelia Street , n 18 The Last of LE Roy Place 75*/ 19 Northeast Corner of Fifth Avenue and Sixteenth Street .
  • Names and Addresses of Attorneys Practicing Before the United States Patent Office, Washington, D

    Names and Addresses of Attorneys Practicing Before the United States Patent Office, Washington, D

    1 T 223 .N 1889 Copy 1 ^*,j ?cv '^'' 1 I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. S^ap Snit^ris]^ la Shelf.W DNITEB STATES OF AMERICA. FAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ATTOKNEYS PRACTICING BKFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE ^w^^sE:i2sra-To:N-, td. o. COMPILED BY V. W. kiDDLETO Waskmgton : Thomas McGill & Co. j8Hg. 4 r^ Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1889, By V. W. MIDDLBTON, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress. Si ^. .-:i ^ NAMES AND ADDRESSES ATTORNEYS PRACTICING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE. The following list embraces the names and addresses of Attorneys practicing before the United States Patent Office, and has been carefully prepared up to date. V. W. MiDDLETON. Washington, D. C, Nov. 1889. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ATTORNEYS. ALABAMA. Name. Residence. Local address. Bromberg, Fred'k G....i Mobile Campbell, E. K | Birmingham. Carroll & Carroll do Post-office Box 63. Hibbard, B. L do Post-office Box 492. Lane & Taliaferro do McDaniel, Jr., P. A ! Abbeville Merrell, A. H | Eufaula Ridge, L. B Birmingham. Post-office Box 169. Smith & Lowe do Sterrett, Rob't H do Taliaferro & Smithson do No. 216 One-Half street. Troy, Tompkins & Montgomery. London. i Zimmerman, Geo. P Birmingham. ; AEIZONA. Barnes, Hon. Wm. H... Tucson Lighthizer, H.B Phoenix i; Porter & Baxter do j No. Washington street. ARKANSAS. Basham, J. H Clarksville Clark S I Helena Coates, James Little Rock Davies, R. G Hot Springs Box No. 17. Davis & Baker Eureka Springs Fulkerson, J. L do Gibbon, T. E Little Rock 32 1 >^ Odd Fellows Block.
  • SUN BUILDING, 280 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan

    SUN BUILDING, 280 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan

    Landmarks Preservation Camnission October 7, 1986; Designation List 186 LP-1439 SUN BUILDING, 280 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan. Built 1845-46, 1850-51, 1852-53, 1872, 1884; architects Joseph Trench & Co., Trench & Snook, [Frederick] Schmidt, Edward D. Harris Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 153, Lot 1 in part consisting of the land on which the described building is situated. On June 14, 1983, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Sun Building and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 14}. The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Two witnesses spoke in favor of designation. There were no speakers in opposition to designation. The Camnission has received l etters and other expressions of support in favor of this designation, including a letter from the Camnissioner of the Department of General Services. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The Sun Building, originally the A.T. Stewart Store, is one of the most influential buildings erected in New York City during the 19th century. Its appearance in 1846 (Fig.1} introduced a new architectural mode based on the palaces of the Italian Renaissance. Designed by the New York architects, Joseph Trench and John B. Snook, it was built by one of the century's greatest merchants, Alexander Turney Stewart. Within its marble walls, Stewart began the city's first department store, a type of commercial enterprise which was to have a great effect on the city's economic growth and which would change the way of merchandising in this country.
  • From Wall Street to Astor Place: Historicizing Melville's `Bartleby'

    From Wall Street to Astor Place: Historicizing Melville's `Bartleby'

    Barbara From Wall Street to Astor Place: Historicizing Foley Melville's "Bartleby" In recent years critics have been calling for a re­ grounding of mid-nineteenth-century American li terature-of the ro­ mance in particular- in politics and history. John McWilliams ap­ plauds the contemporary "challenge to the boundaqless and abstract qualities of the older idea of the Romance's neutral territory." George Dekker notes that recent attempts to "rehistoricize the American ro­ mance'' have entailed an "insist[ence] that our major romancers have always been profoundly concerned with what might be called the men­ tal or ideological 'manners' of American society, and that their seem­ ingly anti-mimetic fictions both represent and criticize those man­ ners. " 1 But Herman Melville's "Bartleby. the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street" (1853) has to this point been exempted from a thorough­ going historical recontextualization; its subtitle remains to be fully explained. Not all readings of the tale, to be sure, have been "boundaryless and abstract." Critics interested in the tale's autobiographical dimen­ sion have interpreted it as an allegory of the writer's fate in a market society. noting specific links with Melville's own difficult authorial career. Scholars concerned wilh the story's New York setting have discovered some important references to contemporaneous events. Marxist critics have argued that "Bartleby" offers a portrait of the increasing alienation of labor in the rationalized capitalist economy that took shape in the mid-nineteenth-century United States.2 But such critical enterprises have remained largely separate, with the result that biography.
  • Furnishings and Factory Life in the Modern Metropolis

    Furnishings and Factory Life in the Modern Metropolis

    Visualizing 19th Century New York Digital Publication Furnishings and Factory Life in the Modern Metropolis Martina D'Amato New York City had firmly established itself as the cabinetmaking capital of America by about 1825, during the heyday of New York’s most famous furniture maker, Duncan Phyfe,1 and remained a prominent producer as well as a sales center for furniture until at least 1875. From the finest parlor furnishings sold in upscale galleries on Broadway to the “dingy . old furniture establishments” selling on the Lower East Side near Five Points,2 New York became as much a site of furniture manufacture as of the production of prints, photography, and books.3 By the middle of the century, there was an increased demand for furniture to decorate the typical American home, in particular the parlor, thanks to the rise in middle-class ambitions to achieve gentility. The parlor exemplified the meeting place of commercial goods and metropolitan life, middle-class identity, domesticity, and comfort. The parlor and the furniture trade have received much scholarly attention for their cultural and social significance.4 Steady progress in the production and trade of household furnishings made the domestic parlor into an attainable space across the social classes, and the affordability of parlor furniture produced in New York owed much to the city’s labor population and its industrial entrepreneurs. D’Amato 2 FIG. 1 “Brady’s New Daguerreotype Saloon, New York,” 1853. From Illustrated News, June 11, 1853. The Daguerrian Society. Inhabitants and visitors alike were encouraged to draw decorating inspiration less from those growing factories and shops than from the city’s public parlors, what Katherine Grier has called “commercial parlors,” in hotels such as the Astor House (see Kelly-Bowditch, “The Paprill Hill View”) to photographic galleries (see McKee, “Mathew Brady and the Daguerreotype Portrait”).
  • The New-York Historical Society Library Department of Prints, Photographs, and Architectural Collections

    The New-York Historical Society Library Department of Prints, Photographs, and Architectural Collections

    Guide to the Geographic File ca 1800-present (Bulk 1850-1950) PR20 The New-York Historical Society 170 Central Park West New York, NY 10024 Descriptive Summary Title: Geographic File Dates: ca 1800-present (bulk 1850-1950) Abstract: The Geographic File includes prints, photographs, and newspaper clippings of street views and buildings in the five boroughs (Series III and IV), arranged by location or by type of structure. Series I and II contain foreign views and United States views outside of New York City. Quantity: 135 linear feet (160 boxes; 124 drawers of flat files) Call Phrase: PR 20 Note: This is a PDF version of a legacy finding aid that has not been updated recently and is provided “as is.” It is key-word searchable and can be used to identify and request materials through our online request system (AEON). PR 000 2 The New-York Historical Society Library Department of Prints, Photographs, and Architectural Collections PR 020 GEOGRAPHIC FILE Series I. Foreign Views Series II. American Views Series III. New York City Views (Manhattan) Series IV. New York City Views (Other Boroughs) Processed by Committee Current as of May 25, 2006 PR 020 3 Provenance Material is a combination of gifts and purchases. Individual dates or information can be found on the verso of most items. Access The collection is open to qualified researchers. Portions of the collection that have been photocopied or microfilmed will be brought to the researcher in that format; microfilm can be made available through Interlibrary Loan. Photocopying Photocopying will be undertaken by staff only, and is limited to twenty exposures of stable, unbound material per day.
  • Newport, Rhode Island As Ward Mcallister Found It

    Newport, Rhode Island As Ward Mcallister Found It

    “The Glare and Glitter of that Fashionable Resort”: Newport, Rhode Island as Ward McAllister Found It By Emily Parrow A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Liberty University Lynchburg, Virginia April 2021 ‘THE GLARE AND GLITTER OF THAT FASHIONABLE RESORT’: NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND AS WARD MCALLISTER FOUND IT by Emily Parrow Liberty University APPROVED BY: David Snead, Ph.D., Committee Chair Michael Davis, Ph.D., Committee Member Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: The Southern Connection ............................................................................................17 Chapter 2: The European Connection ............................................................................................43 Chapter 3: The New York Connection and the Era of Formality ..................................................69 Chapter 4: The New York Connection and the Era of Frivolity ..................................................93 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................130 1 Introduction “Who the devil is Ward McAllister?” The New York Sun posed to its readers in 1889, echoing “a question that has been asked more times of late than any other by reading men all over the country and even in this city.”1 The journalist observed, “In the
  • Mathew Brady and the Daguerreotype Portrait

    Mathew Brady and the Daguerreotype Portrait

    Visualizing 19th Century New York Digital Publication Mathew Brady and the Daguerreotype Portrait Claire McRee Mathew Brady’s entrepreneurial skills and celebrity played a key role in establishing the daguerreotype portrait as part of nineteenth-century New York’s visual culture. The daguerreotype, an early photographic process invented by the Parisians Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre and Joseph Nicéphore Niépce in 1839, was quickly adopted as a portrait medium in America. Daguerreotype portraits enjoyed particular popularity in New York City: the first American commercial portrait studio opened there in 1840, and by 1853 the city had more daguerreotype studios than all of England.1 Daguerreotypes were inexpensive compared with traditional painted portraits, allowing many more consumers to afford a likeness. Moreover, the daguerreotype’s ability to create exact likenesses impressed people, many of whom viewed the daguerreotype process as mysterious and marvelous.2 In 1851 the Photographic Art-Journal expressed a popular attitude toward the seemingly magical daguerreotype process when it extolled of “the invisible hand of Nature” creating the image “with her own cunning pencil.”3 McRee 2 FIG. 1 J. Brown. Brady’s Gallery of Daguerreotype Portrait and Family Groups, 1849. Wood engraving. Eno Collection, Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations. Mathew Brady was born in upstate New York, but like many New York City entrepreneurs of the era, he moved to the city as a young man in search of new opportunities. He opened his first portrait studio in 1844 at 205 Broadway, a building he shared with Edward Anthony, a stereographer and supplier of photographic materials (see Spofford “Prosperous Partnership”).
  • Introduction 2019-2022 Doormen Agreement.Pub

    Introduction 2019-2022 Doormen Agreement.Pub

    FOR ABOMA MEMBER USE ONLY Issued November 2019 Apartment Building Owners and Managers Association of Illinois COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN APARTMENT BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1 PROPERTY SERVICE DIVISION for the period DECEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2022 Covering Doorstaff, Receiving Room Employees and Others as defined in Article I INTRODUCTION This booklet is exclusively for the use of ABOMA Members and contains the following: • Pages 1 through 27 Full Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between ABOMA and SEIU Local 1, Property Service Division Covering Doorstaff Receiving Room Employees and Others as defined in Article I for the period of December 1, 2019 through November 30, 2022 • Page 24 Letter of Agreement – Drug and Alcohol Policies • Page 25 Letter of Agreement – Subcontracting • Page 26 and 27 Memorandum of Agreement relating to Sub contracting and sample of Contractor DSMOA SCHEDULE A Pages 1-3 (NIPF) The Buildings (Employers) identified in Schedule A of this Agreement shall contribute for all regular Employees to the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "NIPF") in order to provide retirement benefits for eligible Employees in accordance with the terms of the NIPF. SCHEDULE B Pages 1-3 (401K Pension Savings Plan) The Buildings (Employers) identified in Schedule B of this Agreement shall contribute for all regular employees to the SEIU Local 1 401(k) Savings Plan in order to provide retirement benefits for eligible Employees in accordance with the terms of the 401(k) Plan. SCHEDULE C Page 1 (DSMOA NIPF) The Buildings and sub-contractors (Employers) identified in Schedule C of this Agreement shall contribute for all regular Employees to the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "NIPF") in order to provide retirement benefits for eligible Employees in accordance with the terms of the NIPF.
  • (FORMER) FIREHOUSE, ENGINE COMPANY 29, 160 Chambers Street, Manhattan Built C

    (FORMER) FIREHOUSE, ENGINE COMPANY 29, 160 Chambers Street, Manhattan Built C

    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 28, 2016, Designation List 488 LP-2564 (FORMER) FIREHOUSE, ENGINE COMPANY 29, 160 Chambers Street, Manhattan Built c. 1832-33, architect not determined; altered 1868, Nathaniel D. Bush Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 137, Lot 25 On February 11, 2014, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the (Former) Firehouse, Engine Company 29 and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 1).1 The hearing was duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. There were three speakers in favor of designation, including representatives of Tribeca Trust and Historic Districts Council. Summary The Former Firehouse, Engine Company 29 is one of the city’s earliest surviving police stations, and is an early and an important reminder of the development of Chambers Street and southern Tribeca. While the relatively narrow width of the building recalls its early residential character, the height and design of the facade signals the building’s later civic uses. The building at 160 Chambers Street has served a variety of private and public uses since the early 19th century. Located on the south side of Chambers Street between West Broadway and Greenwich Street, it was built as a three-story residence by Samuel Thomson, a noted builder, c. 1832-33. In 1836 David B. Ogden, a prominent lawyer, purchased the house and lived here until about 1848. The building attained its present appearance as the result of several alterations. New York City purchased the building in 1862 to serve as the 3rd Police Precinct Station House.
  • Wisconsin Historic Properties

    Wisconsin Historic Properties

    Wisconsin Historic Properties LaPointe Indian Cemetery Trout Point Logging Camp Adams County Confidential Address Restricted Preston, Town of (NRHP 08-03-77) (NRHP 12-16-88) Roche-a-Cri Petroglyphs (SRHP --) (SRHP 01-01-89) Roche-A-Cri State Park, LUCERNE (Shipwreck) Winston-Cadotte Site Friendship, 53934 Lake Superior restricted (NRHP 05-11-81) (NRHP 12-18-91) (NRHP 12-16-05) Friendship (SRHP --) (SRHP 09-23-05) Adams County Courthouse Manitou Camp Morse, Town of Confidential 402 Main St. Copper Falls State Park (NRHP 01-19-83) (NRHP 03-09-82) State Highway 169, 1.8 miles (SRHP --) (SRHP 01-01-89) northeast of Mellen Marina Site (NRHP 12-16-05) Ashland County Confidential (SRHP 09-23-05) (NRHP 12-22-78) Sanborn, Town of Jacobs, Town of (SRHP --) Glidden State Bank Marquette Shipwreck La Pointe Light Station Long Island in Chequamagon Bay 216 First Street 5 miles east of Michigan ISland, (NRHP 08-04-83) (NRHP 03-29-06) Lake Superior (SRHP 01-01-89) (SRHP 01-20-06) (NRHP 02-13-08) Marion Park Pavilion (SRHP 07-20-07) Ashland Marion Park Moonlight Shipwreck Ashland County Courthouse (NRHP 06-04-81) 7 miles east of Michigan Island, 201 W. 2nd St. (SRHP 01-01-89) Lake Superior (NRHP 03-09-82) La Pointe, Town of (NRHP 10-01-08) (SRHP 01-01-89) (SRHP 04-18-08) Ashland Harbor Breakwater Apostle Islands Lighthouses Morty Site (47AS40) Light N and E of Bayfield on Michigan, Confidential breakwater's end of Raspberry, Outer, Sand and (NRHP 06-13-88) Chequamegon Bay Devils Islands (SRHP --) (NRHP 03-01-07) (NRHP 03-08-77) (SRHP --) (SRHP 01-01-89) NOQUEBAY (Schooner--Barge) Bass Island Brownstone Shipwreck Site Ashland Middle School Company Quarry Lake Superior 1000 Ellis Ave.
  • Hotel Martinique, 1260 Broadway, Aka 1260-1268 Broadway, 49-51 West 32Nd Street, and 54- 58 West 33Rd Street, Manhattan

    Hotel Martinique, 1260 Broadway, Aka 1260-1268 Broadway, 49-51 West 32Nd Street, and 54- 58 West 33Rd Street, Manhattan

    Landmarks Preservation Commission May 5, 1998, Designation List 292 LP-1983 Hotel Martinique, 1260 Broadway, aka 1260-1268 Broadway, 49-51 West 32nd Street, and 54- 58 West 33rd Street, Manhattan. Built 1897-98, 1901-03, 1909-11; architect, Henry J. Hardenbergh. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 834, Lot 11. On February 10, 1998, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of the Hotel Martinique (Item No. 2) . The hearing was duly advertised according to the provisions of law. There were two speakers in favor of designation and the representative of the owner stated that they were not opposed to designation. Summary The Hotel Martinique, a major work of the prominent designer Henry J. Hardenbergh, was constructed in three phases, in 1897-98, 1901-03, and 1909- 11. Developer William R. H. Martin, who had invested heavily in real estate in this area of the city, built and expanded the hotel in response to the growth of entertainment, shopping, and transportation activities in this busy midtown section. Martin hired the distinguished architect Henry J. Hardenbergh, who had acquired a reputation for his luxury hotel designs, including the original Waldorf and Astoria Hotels, as well as the Plaza. In his hotel and apartment house designs, Hardenbergh created picturesque compositions based on Beaux-Arts precedents, giving special care to interior planning and appointments. For the sixteen-story, French Renaissance­ inspired style Hotel Martinique, the architect capitalized on the openness made possible by Greeley Square, to show off the building's boldly-scaled mansard roof, with its towers, and ornate dormers.